The Delhi High Court, while rejecting a petition seeking direction that the sentence awarded in two different cases be made to run concurrently instead of consecutively, noted that terror cases must be dealt with an even higher degree of sternness.

Rejecting a petition filed by a man convicted of being a member of the terror outfit ISIS, the single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the petitioner was convicted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and pleaded guilty to the offence of terrorism.

The High Court mentioned the Supreme Court ruling, which held that concurrent running of sentences should not be allowed in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) cases because of their impact on society.

The single-judge Bench noted that in this case, petitioner Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed had himself pleaded guilty to charges framed under UAPA, for his acts of planning to carry out terrorist attacks in Hardwar during Kumbh Mela and plotting to kill a leader of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily with an aim to harm and disrupt communal harmony in the country.

Since a lenient view has already been taken by the Trial Courts at the stage of sentencing, no further leniency can be granted to the petitioner by allowing concurrent running of sentences awarded to him by the Trial Courts in Greater Bombay and Delhi, it added.

Sayyed was convicted for various offences under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial courts in Mumbai and Delhi.

The Mumbai Court convicted him for promoting the activities of ISIS, recruitment of youths to become fidayeen, and for planning the assassination of Kamlesh Tiwari, a leader of Hindu Mahasabha. He was sentenced to eight years in jail in the case.

The trial court in Delhi ordered him to be imprisoned for seven years after finding him guilty of conspiring to attack the city of Haridwar during the Ardh Kumbh Mela, and raising funds for the same.

Sayyed pleaded guilty in both cases.

After considering the case, Justice Sharma said that the trial courts in both Mumbai and Delhi did not award him a life sentence, the maximum punishment for the offence he was convicted of, and if the two sentences were to run concurrently, he will spend only eight years in jail.

The High Court said keeping in mind the gravity of the offence committed by the convict, no prejudice would be caused if the sentence of 15 years were to run concurrently.

Justice Sharma ruled that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in case arising out of RC09/2016/NIA/DLI by the Trial Court (Delhi) shall commence upon expiration of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in case arising out of RC-02/2016/NIA/MUM by the Trial Court (Greater Bombay).

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Siddharth Sunil. Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, along with Advocates Khawar Saleem and Arun Kumar appeared for the National Investigation Agency.